Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

Post by bigbillheck » Sun, Jan 01, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

starkd wrote: post #79

jmyeet wrote: post #69

Some claim Twitter is attempting to renegotiate. That may well be true. But this doesn't fit in well with the greater narrative. Since Elon's takeover of Twitter, it's been one PR disaster after the next. Mass layoffs, begging people to come back, cutting remote work, cutting in-office catering, the whole Twitter Blue debacle, unbanning some of the worst, the drop of advertising spend on Twitter (which, at least in p…

They had to cut costs to keep away from the "fast lane to bankruptcy". When not pulling in enough revenue, you have to act quickly. https://youtu.be/HE5CTKqWEV0?t=3570 Wasn't twitter supposed to stop working by now? They are still functioning, despite the layoffs. Maybe it worked?

Post by phpisthebest » Sun, Jan 01, 2023, 5:11 PM UTC

sschueller wrote: post #85

phpisthebest wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in knowing how many other tenants this landlord has chosen to file suit on when the tenant is 7 days over due (in default in 21st, filed the suit on the 29th)? Seem very aggressive. I wonder if politics has any bearing on their choice to file? Or the fact that Elon has publicly been considering closing the SanFran HQ?

Doesn't in default mean they had several reminders to pay and have now defaulted and invalidated their lease agreement?

Post by criley2 » Sun, Jan 01, 2023, 5:12 PM UTC

phpisthebest wrote: post #77

rsfern wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the landlord Twitter is supposed to have been “in default” on their lease as of Dec 21. It’s like the second sentence of the Bloomberg article we’re commenting on, before the subscription fold.

I would be interested in knowing how many other tenants this landlord has chosen to file suit on when the tenant is 7 days over due (in default in 21st, filed the suit on the 29th)? Seem very aggressive. I wonder if politics has any bearing on their choice to file? Or the fact that Elon has publicly been considering closing the SanFran HQ?

Post by moneywoes » Sun, Jan 01, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

api wrote: post #92

Someone wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their policies aren’t exactly written in stone. Yes, on November 11, it was ( https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-... ) “an email to employees from Musk on Wednesday night ordering workers to stop working from home and show up in the office Thursday morning” , but that was ages ago. Last week, we got ( https://nypost.com/2022/12/30/twitter-closing-seattle-office... ): “Twitter is closing down…

Didn't they do that trick of pretending to end remote work to make people resign so they don't have to pay severance?

Post by IG_Semmelweiss » Sun, Jan 01, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

jsnell wrote: post #48

nostrademons wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Litigation takes years to play out, paying the lease would result in bankruptcy imminently. Plan is to live another day, long enough to stabilize finances, and then unload it on the public markets where the litigation becomes somebody else's problem.

This is Musk stiffing a supplier for $100k. That seems unlikely to make their bankruptcy any more imminent. But it does signal (on the record, not just rumours) to literally anybody that Twitter is doing business with that they are distressed, and should be extended no credit. Payment up front, or no service.